Sexland, a Saxon England?
- Thread starter Zorqal
- Start date
But current day "Saxony/Sachsen" is only called so for dynastic reasons a few centuries ago, while the original Saxen is Niedersachsen (not just the Bundesland area, but somewhat larger).
In the same vein, perhaps you could have the Hanoverians give UK the name Saxony. The English are called Sassenach and Saesneg as it is.
In Irish England already is Sasana.
Last edited:
because the term 'Anglo- Saxons' didn't originate as meaning "a combination of Angles and Saxons", it originated -- in the form "Anglii Saxones", which has already been mentioned in this thread -- as meaning the "Saxons" (used as a collective name for ALL of those peoples, by some chroniclers writing in Latin, simply because the Saxons had been the first of those peoples to come to Roman attention) "of England' (as distinct from their relatives who'd stayed on the continent).
True.
Because butterflies.
I gave you an exemple in the post you quoted : by changing an event, you change its historical consequences. While changes may take time to be noticable, a IV/V century PoD would certainly make VIII/IX centuries different.
I don't really get your point. For Early Middle Ages, paractically up to XIII century, Saxony is for continental, North Sea, Saxony; not for the region called so nowadays.
The point is that, when names of western european regions began to be fixed, aka in the VIII/X centuries, (both in England, and continental regions) it appeared to contemporaries to be better to distinguish related peoples and regions and as continental, original Saxony was still a thing both "nationally" and politically, it keep the name.
Eventually, it's not the popular usage that fixed names (only rarely and not for political ensemble, more for local or geographical names), more the clerical decisions. Again, "Angli Saxones" is probably not how locals named themselves, but how they were distinguished by chanceries.
1/ I just wanted to say that it was possible for the name to have been changed at a later, early-modern, date, and need not necessarily be tied to what it was called in the middle ages,
2/ and also that it actually does have that particular name already in OTL.
As you pointed out, the name didn't changed but was transmitted, by a dynastic mean. Such transmission is unlikely to happen outside a feudal context, aka EMA Saxons.
The desingtegration of Saxony, politically, allowed the OTL transmission as the political definition during feudal times was based on dynastic features.
I always wondered why Essex, Wessex and Sussex aren't complemented by a Nossex
Because God had pity and spared us endless poor jokes. Too bad Nietzsche killed Him before He could get rid of Uranus.
Butterflies away the Norman Conquest because Edward the Confessor (known as such becauser he is constantltly confessing to court orgies) has many sons. So Harold never goes to Normandy, is never forced to swear that ath to Wiliam who never has an excuse to invade so no Battle of Hastings in 1066 so the House of Wessex continues to rule with everyon having a really great time! However, Edward's son Ethelred the Ever Ready (the reason for the nickname is well known is excommunicated by Pope Urban II for one to many outragous Saxon Orgies.
In the 1960s Frankie Howerd sttars in the movie Up Sexland taking an irreverently tongue in cheek look at the period in is classic style
In the 1960s Frankie Howerd sttars in the movie Up Sexland taking an irreverently tongue in cheek look at the period in is classic style
Last edited:
Butterflies away the Norman Conquest because Edward the Confessor (known as such becauser he is constantltly confessing to court orgies) has many sons. So Harold never goes to Normandy, is never forced to swear that ath to Wiliam who never has an excuse to invade so no Battle of Hastings in 1066 so the House of Wessex continues to rule with everyon having a really great time! However, Edward's son Ethelred the Ever Ready (the reason for the nickname is well known is excommunicated by Pope Urban II for one to many outragous Saxon Orgies.
In the 1960s Frankie Howerd sttars in the movie Up Sexland taking an irreverently tongue in cheek look at the period in is classic style
The problem here is that Edward was already king of England. I don't see why no Normans would cause Edward's kingdom's name to change. I think it would really need to be either before the formation of the kingdom, or after with Hanoverians, as was previously mentioned.
I'm pretty sure it was joke about Sex-land, with mentions of orgies.
Totally not saw it comin'.
Totally not saw it comin'.
I'm pretty sure it was joke about Sex-land, with mentions of orgies.
Totally not saw it comin'.
Yeah, I saw this coming. This thread will eventually become a heap of bad sex jokes.
If this has been mentioned before ignore. I just can't be bothered to wade through the all the innuendo-it's like giggling at sec(x) in A Level Maths!
Anyway the POD has to be 5th or 6th Century as when Alfred and his heirs reconquered the island, the kingdom was always referred to as England. Now why, if anything it was an enlarged Wessex and France didn't change its name when it absorbed bits of Burgundy and Italy so why isn't the kingdom still called Wessex. It's for the same reason that Germany in 1870 was Germany not Prussia. The island up to the Tweed already had the identity of England. This was for the reasons like Anglii saxoni and because people who considered themselves as Angles spread their influence over a larger area than those who considered themselves Saxons so their land was Angleland hence England.
Now it could have been many things, if William had wanted to rename the country it could have been Great Normandy, descendants of northmen lived in England as in Normandy proper. However England was too firmly entrenched.
Anyway the POD has to be 5th or 6th Century as when Alfred and his heirs reconquered the island, the kingdom was always referred to as England. Now why, if anything it was an enlarged Wessex and France didn't change its name when it absorbed bits of Burgundy and Italy so why isn't the kingdom still called Wessex. It's for the same reason that Germany in 1870 was Germany not Prussia. The island up to the Tweed already had the identity of England. This was for the reasons like Anglii saxoni and because people who considered themselves as Angles spread their influence over a larger area than those who considered themselves Saxons so their land was Angleland hence England.
Now it could have been many things, if William had wanted to rename the country it could have been Great Normandy, descendants of northmen lived in England as in Normandy proper. However England was too firmly entrenched.
And it's of course really toughtful for people that bothered about giving an actual answer.
That said assuming the "I couldn't be bothered about looking at a thread before answering it", is bold, I give you that.
Because England, as a name for political ensembles was a thing. As Germany as a political concept pre-existed Prussian domination.
No. Even without "England" or an equivalent, it would be absolutly no way such expression exists out of nowhere. I would say it looks too much like the national expression of "Great/Greater something". It could work for national or even post-national identities, but in MA where what was referential was dynastic features and not lingustical or ethnical, it definitely seems too much out of touch.
Actually the only ones I didn't read were the innuendo ridden ones or at least the ones that started that way. So my first comment actually accepted that there could have been serious comments hidden in there which I hadn't read.
Secondly I did actually answer the bits you quoted from me in the post itself with very much the same reasoning that you used.
And yes I am feeling grumpy as I just spent half an hour trying to explain to my 16 year old son the difference between clauses and phrases before his GCSE mocks!
And why am I creating an argument when we both are basically saying the same thing England was going to be England without something really big and really early happening to stop it.
Last edited:
I figured it would need to be early. Why not with Alfred, like you said? I'll need to research that, I don't really know about it.
Charlemagne did just that, before 800, but that might have been too late.
What would you call "nuke" in this context? A war of extermination seems anachronic, and Saxons were far more raiders than raided.
I suppose that a more agressive neighborhood could help, but who?
Franks had enough stuff to keep their ambitions in Gaul and Mediterranea, and even an early takeover would probably make Saxony looking like Merovingian Thuringia.
Frisians were powerful but not having numbers to take on Saxony, their power being more in naval control.
Slavs? OTL they never really managed to cross Saxon lands (except when allied with Franks) and settle there. I can imagine some doing this, or even having a political rule on some parts, but it wouldn't revert the "Saxon" character of the land (not talking of "nuking" it)
I never realized Franks had a AMD doctrine
More seriously, Charlemagne had a really harsh and bloody (even for this era's standard) policy towards Saxons but it was limited in time, being really unefficient and criticized by the church (that, being sattelized by Carolingians, tends to show that the policy that indeed frowned upon).
Eventually Saxons were integrated into the empire and recieved a quite important autonomy (particular laws, Saxons leaders given count/graf positions, etc).
A PoD with Alfred of Wessex is definitely too late. As he said, Anglia is used for the Island back to VI century (even if not naming the whole of island).
Your only realistic way to prevent southern Britain to be called such is to prevent Angles forming powerful kingdoms in Brittania and/or to be as demographically important they were OTL.
Eventually, the "last chance point" is to prevent Mercian and Northumbrian rise as well, (both historical and possible allohistorical), having Anglia and *England naming the middle part of Britain.
However, you would have most certainly another expression replacing them.
Depending on who is the "junior" partner you could end with Frisii Saxones, Jutii Saxones but I doubt it would be possible without nerfing them enough that they appear as something else than local powers.
Eventually, if clerks are pedentic enough to use Antic words, you could end with Britanii Saxones, or Albioni Saxones.
Southern Britain (at the possible exception of *Anglia) would be called by the name of the most powerful kingdom, as Wessex while the whole island could recieve a derivative of Albion or Britain (Brittania being used in the late period for geographical purposes, while Albion was used OTL by Anglo-Saxons kings for marking their overlordship real or claimed)
Now it would likely be deformed, and give something like Bretland, Bressex, Albo, Alborice, etc (While I'm not that sure it would be the correct Old *English use).
It's not that for me actually : some people had different ideas and while I can disagree with them, I think it's elementary politness to read them, and eventually answering.
I don't want to enter in an argument, just pointing this is a rude behavior.
Counterstrike
Banned
I suppose you can also call it Anglo-Saxony, but I dont know to get Saxony in the term with the Angles, I guess making the Saxons more prominent earlier like Wessex would help